Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

But that's Maria, who is a nine year old girl. We aren't talking about just one little gullible girl, we're talking about an entire island. And again, this is a complete undermine to red text, which makes it sound like Beatrice is trying to trick up Battler rather than help him. Frankly I wouldn't be amazed at this, I would be pissed that the only thing that we have such affirmative trust on in this entire game is being used in such a dirty way.

So, it isn't dirty for all of the magic scenes to be completely fake, but it is dirty for a single red line to be more than what it first seems?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marion

So Sayo, a girl who you are claiming is insane in the head enough to make up her own magical world with different beings and pretend to be them, suddenly had an epiphany.

No, I am not claiming that she is insane. If you aren't going to argue within the premises of my theory, it's only natural that you'll reach a contradiction. Yes, I know that part B is wrong if part A is wrong. My point is that, if part A is right, part B can also be right.

__________________

"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers

He doesn't have to as long as he accidentally causes all subsequent deaths through his actions. Nothing says a dead person can't cause other people to die.

You must really not have paid attention to my theory. There exists no kind of accident that can lead to occult stakes being shoved into 3 people at the same time, especially when all three were separated by several feet. Unless you show evidence that Gohda set up a contraption like that, you can't use this theory.

See? It isn't as easy as you think it is. If you could make an argument for how such a contraption would be built, then you might have something, but I guarantee that you will find nothing that is physically possible or even remotely likely to have the effect it does.

__________________

"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers

You must really not have paid attention to my theory. There exists no kind of accident that can lead to occult stakes being shoved into 3 people at the same time. Unless you show evidence that Gohda set up a contraption like that, you can't use this theory.

See? It isn't as easy as you think it is. If you could make an argument for how such a contraption would be built, then you might have something, but I guarantee that you will find nothing that is physically possible or even remotely likely to have the effect it does.

Nope, this is easy too. He can cause people to kill each other, stake each other, or put themselves in physical danger through his pre-death actions. But they were all accidental, and all the subsequent behavior was unintentional or based on wacky misunderstandings caused by Gohda's bungling. Obviously I haven't gone and set it all up yet, but if there's no restriction or basis in what I can do other than not contradicting the red, I can eventually reach an "answer" which I absolutely know is not the right one.

EDIT: And to be clear, my point here is that we have to be careful in saying an answer that "adds up" without contradiction is an answer that is "right." This is especially true when our basis is the interpretation of a work of fiction. That isn't something we can casually approach with any certainty. We don't know what the author meant, and we'd be led seriously astray to believe we've "got it all right." I fully believe the closest person to the "real answer" will be maybe half to three-quarters correct, and will absolutely be missing a few details. It's just how this stuff happens.

So, it isn't dirty for all of the magic scenes to be completely fake, but it is dirty for a single red line to be more than what it first seems?

Magic scenes are meant to be faked - they are designed with the idea that they are supernatural in mind. But this isn't just about a single line. If you say that "Shannon is dead" means that Sayo is still alive then that means every line with Shannon involved can be seen as worthless. Same goes for Kanon. Now to me, that is incredibly dirty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

No, I am not claiming that she is insane. If you aren't going to argue within the premises of my theory, it's only natural that you'll reach a contradiction. Yes, I know that part B is wrong if part A is wrong. My point is that, if part A is right, part B can also be right.

Either way, your theory is that Sayo is murdering everyone under the premise that they will all reach the Golden Land. But if the epitaph is solved then that won't happen. So after the epitaph is solved why does Sayo hand over things to the 2nd culprit and tells them to kill. They won't reach the Golden Land because Eva (and Rosa for that matter) solved the epitaph and found the gold. What is Sayo's motive in allowing the murders to continue if she promised that they would stop when the epitaph is solved?

No one exists in this room except all of you. All of you refers to Battler, George, Maria, Rosa, Genji, Gohda, and Shannon
When Jessica's corpse was discovered, only Battler, George, Maria, Rosa, Genji, Gohda, Shannon, Kumasawa, and Nanjo were in Jessica's room
Therefore, both in the case of Jessica's room and the case in this servants' room, no humans exist that are you were not aware of

Where is Sayo?

-If Sayo is outside the room, then how can Shannon be on the inside?
-If Sayo is inside the room, then why isn't she counted separately in the red text?

He needs to be tricked for the time being, certainly. Meta-Beatrice wants her games with him to last as long as possible, but that's only so that she can give him as many clues as possible. Why would she fill up half of her precious time with meaningless fluff? Remember that Beatrice eventually died to tell Battler what she did. This isn't a joke for her.

And the reason Meta Beatrice wants Battler to kill her in the end? Maybe she wanted Battler to know the truth, but I have a feeling meta Beatrice didn't even want to play the game if it would cause her to want to die. She may have felt forced to play, and would've rather had Battler learn the truth in a simpler way. The people who wanted her to play Were Bernkastel and Lambdadelta and the only reason was because they found it amusing.

There's the metaphor about her being a caged bird too and the shackles Lamda puts on her. Her existence is kind of sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Never once does the game state that Shannon is the name of a human being. From the very beginning, we've known that it was only a title that she used when on the job. Also, you say that they were recognized as living beings, but Maria recognized Sakutaro as a living being, did she not?

The game never states that Kinzo is the name of a human being either, and he's imagined often, or that Natsuhi's the name of a human for that matter, but I understand what your saying. That the on names are titles. I can show that your wrong.

The game says the "on" names are pseudonyms not titles. That doesn't mean that they are not the names of real people that means it's a name used to give the person working anonymity. That's why Kanon's name can't be inherited. A pseudonym isn't inherited because it is meant to protect the privacy of the person using it. I don't think work names can even be stolen.

A work name is basically like a penname. You use it to keep you identity anonymous at work. It's not common in businesses for any one person to have two work names anywhere. The way I see your argument for this pseudonym is: There are two authors both of them have pennames. And they have similar styles of writing. They write similarly therefore the two authors must be the same person using two different pennames.

A work name is basically like a penname. You use it to keep you identity anonymous at work. It's not common in businesses for one person to have two work names anywhere. The way I see your argument for this pseudonym is: There are two authors both of them have pennames. And they have similar styles of writing. They write similarly therefore the two authors must be the same person using two different pennames.

It's just silly.

Not to agree with chrono's theory or anything, but I know of several authors who used multiple pennames. Stephen King springs to mind. Also Jayne Krentz, who has seven of them.

Not to agree with chrono's theory or anything, but I know of several authors who used multiple pennames. Stephen King springs to mind. Also Jayne Krentz, who has seven of them.

I guess I can give a better example then. Say there is a waitress and a waiter and both of them applied to work under a pseudonym and they both get the job. They're private people so they don't use their real names. The waitress's work name is "Lenon" and the waiter's work name is "Marion". The manager has to put your name down on paper for certain tables for your hours everyday he also has to send money to your bank account as well. Let's just say this manager is Hideyoshi. One day the waiter "Marion" disappears and they have to change the schedule since he's not there. Would Hideyoshi have his employees keep it a secret that he's not there if "Lenon" the waitress could do the job as "Marion" as well? Or would he simply hire a new waiter to take away some of the burden because Marion doesn't go to work anymore?

Show some evidence as to why Gohda could have survived the first twilight in EP3.

It was not actually Toshiro Gohda that died in the first twilight, but his identical twin, Katsuo Gohda. They worked in secrecy, wearing same clothes and using the fact that they looked exactly same to their advantage. The proof is Gohda's dualistic nature. It was actually Toshiro Gohda who was jolly man who liked to just make food, while Katsuo Gohda liked to bully Shannon and Kannon.

Renall's already said more than I ever could, but something in your Ep3 theory struck me as, er, wrong.

As I understand it, it's not that Ep3 was originally a core arc as it was an entirely different game, called Land of the Golden Witch. It was supposed to be the hardest of all the games, and contained a "venomous trap" that was later moved to Ep5.

When Ryukishi saw that the readers were having trouble with the concept of magic scenes in Ep2, he rewrote Land and brought in the catbox idea, which was originally in Ep6.

This is only what I've heard, at any rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

It was not actually Toshiro Gohda that died in the first twilight, but his identical twin, Katsuo Gohda. They worked in secrecy, wearing same clothes and using the fact that they looked exactly same to their advantage. The proof is Gohda's dualistic nature. It was actually Toshiro Gohda who was jolly man who liked to just make food, while Katsuo Gohda liked to bully Shannon and Kannon.

When Ryukishi saw that the readers were having trouble with the concept of magic scenes in Ep2, he rewrote Land and brought in the catbox idea, which was originally in Ep6.

This is only what I've heard, at any rate.

Nope, that was only ever a theory. The catbox was part of what made EP3 easier, but that could just as easily have been "I added Virgilia and Ronove to make things easier for the reader". There was never any guarantee that this fact was what the answer arc was based around, and if you think about it, that's not a very substantial thing to base a whole arc around.

Quote:

It was not actually Toshiro Gohda that died in the first twilight, but his identical twin, Katsuo Gohda. They worked in secrecy, wearing same clothes and using the fact that they looked exactly same to their advantage. The proof is Gohda's dualistic nature. It was actually Toshiro Gohda who was jolly man who liked to just make food, while Katsuo Gohda liked to bully Shannon and Kannon.

You're trying to mock me, but your analogy here simply doesn't work. The only reason Shkanon is plausible is because most of the opening to EP2 makes little sense without it. There has never been such foreshadowing for Gohda. The Shkanon argument has nothing to do with "changes in her personality". If it were based only on that, it would be ridiculous.

I think it's clear that several people on this forum have no desire to even give my theory a chance, much less listen to the whole thing. That being the case, it is only a waste of time for me to lay it out here. I wish you all luck in solving the game, but unless you find a solution that explains why the scenes I've mentioned are important, I seriously doubt you'll find anything satisfying.

__________________

"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers

Nope, that was only ever a theory. The catbox was part of what made EP3 easier, but that could just as easily have been "I added Virgilia and Ronove to make things easier for the reader". There was never any guarantee that this fact was what the answer arc was based around, and if you think about it, that's not a very substantial thing to base a whole arc around.

I DEFINITELY remember an interview where he was talking about adding the catbox concept. And I never said that it was what the entire arc was based around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

You're trying to mock me, but your analogy here simply doesn't work. The only reason Shkanon is plausible is because most of the opening to EP2 makes little sense without it. There has never been such foreshadowing for Gohda. The Shkanon argument has nothing to do with "changes in her personality". If it were based only on that, it would be ridiculous.

You have no sense of humor at all, do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I think it's clear that several people on this forum have no desire to even give my theory a chance, much less listen to the whole thing. That being the case, it is only a waste of time for me to lay it out here. I wish you all luck in solving the game, but unless you find a solution that explains why the scenes I've mentioned are important, I seriously doubt you'll find anything satisfying.

Dude, I do like some parts of your theory, namely how you've explained the gold text and Shannon's motivations, but I don't like Shkannon. That's my problem and not yours.

I think it's clear that several people on this forum have no desire to even give my theory a chance, much less listen to the whole thing. That being the case, it is only a waste of time for me to lay it out here. I wish you all luck in solving the game, but unless you find a solution that explains why the scenes I've mentioned are important, I seriously doubt you'll find anything satisfying.

Not really. I just don't think your version is the only way to look at it. The mirror thing in episode two seems to just be to give the shrine some importance in the story and we haven't figured out why the shrine is important enough to be put in the opening theme of episode 3. One thing I theorized was that smashing the mirror opened up an entrance to an underground passage where the gold is. That still shows some importance for that event without it being about magic.

There are lots of theories you can come up with like this. It doesn't have to all be characterization for Shkanon.

I think it's clear that several people on this forum have no desire to even give my theory a chance, much less listen to the whole thing. That being the case, it is only a waste of time for me to lay it out here. I wish you all luck in solving the game, but unless you find a solution that explains why the scenes I've mentioned are important, I seriously doubt you'll find anything satisfying.

I appreciated some of the early stuff you said regarding the theory of witches and what they might have done at Fukuin. But you've taken some those ideas and clues and then you've launched right into a story, not a theory.

What people are trying to tell you is that your story doesn't solve anything. They're trying to say that you can fit the clues to your story or any story to begin with.

As I understand it, it's not that Ep3 was originally a core arc as it was an entirely different game, called Land of the Golden Witch. It was supposed to be the hardest of all the games, and contained a "venomous trap" that was later moved to Ep5.

In any case, I think it'd be rather instructive to think up a Gohda Accident theory. We can use it as a tongue-in-cheek weapon to point at unrealistic theories in future. No offense, chrono.

Please do...after you've expanded it to explain every magic scene, every puzzle, and the nature of the meta-world in a realistic way (i.e. an extremely low random chance can never be the sole cause for any murder, and there must be a logical reason for why each death happens the way it does).

__________________

"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers

In any case, I think it'd be rather instructive to think up a Gohda Accident theory. We can use it as a tongue-in-cheek weapon to point at unrealistic theories in future. No offense, chrono.

Well, the original one I cooked up for ep2 back before ep4's patch was even finished technically works, but only for ep2. The hard parts would be explaining how Gohda manages to accidentally kill everybody in ep1 and ep3.

As to the final incident, obviously Gohda left the burner on by mistake. Insert volcanic gas theory here, and presto! Your negligence has killed us all once again, Gohda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I think it's clear that several people on this forum have no desire to even give my theory a chance, much less listen to the whole thing. That being the case, it is only a waste of time for me to lay it out here. I wish you all luck in solving the game, but unless you find a solution that explains why the scenes I've mentioned are important, I seriously doubt you'll find anything satisfying.

I've listened, I've been critical, I've pointed out areas I think need work and approaches you could take both public and private. What I have heard of your theory suggests some things to me about it, and this confirms it. If you'd prefer to wait for ep7, well, I'm sure it will settle a lot of things for a lot of people, if Bern is as ravenous as she appears to be. I just would advise you not to be too disappointed, because I think a lot of wrong ideas are going to get smashed without pity or remorse. That is, if ryukishi's doing the job he says he's going to do.

Well, the original one I cooked up for ep2 back before ep4's patch was even finished technically works, but only for ep2. The hard parts would be explaining how Gohda manages to accidentally kill everybody in ep1 and ep3.

Hmm... I guess he'd have to have set up some series of traps, entirely by mistake, of course. The only problem is how the stakes are involved.